Create an Account
username: password:
 
  MemeStreams Logo

The Volokh Conspiracy - On 'legislating from the bench'

search

Decius
Picture of Decius
Decius's Pics
My Blog
My Profile
My Audience
My Sources
Send Me a Message

sponsored links

Decius's topics
Arts
  Literature
   Sci-Fi/Fantasy Literature
  Movies
   Sci-Fi/Fantasy Films
  Music
   Electronic Music
Business
  Finance & Accounting
  Tech Industry
  Telecom Industry
  Management
  Markets & Investing
Games
Health and Wellness
Home and Garden
  Parenting
Miscellaneous
  Humor
  MemeStreams
Current Events
  War on Terrorism
Recreation
  Cars and Trucks
  Travel
Local Information
  United States
   SF Bay Area
    SF Bay Area News
Science
  Biology
  History
  Math
  Nano Tech
  Physics
Society
  Economics
  Politics and Law
   Civil Liberties
    Internet Civil Liberties
    Surveillance
   Intellectual Property
  Media
   Blogging
Sports
Technology
  Computer Security
  Macintosh
  Spam
  High Tech Developments

support us

Get MemeStreams Stuff!


 
The Volokh Conspiracy - On 'legislating from the bench'
Topic: Politics and Law 7:28 pm EDT, May 20, 2006

I propose adopting a "presumption of liberty" by which the burden is placed on Congress to establish that its laws are truly "necessary and proper"—what it used to debate but no longer.

Now thats an idea I could really get behind. This collection of posts on Volokh is perhaps the most vital conversation that I've seen about the nature of the Constitution in a long time, mostly because it seems for some reason to have broken from the partisan arguements that often follow from policy objectives.

We used to have a limited government and a conservative judiciary. In the 30's the power of the legislature was vastly expanded because people expected the government to solve social problems. The power of the judiciary expanded in reaction to that.

In theory it is that case that conservatives want a limited government and liberals want an expansive one. You'd think conservatives could really get behind the idea in the above passage. However, in practice conservatives mean limited only in a fiscal sense and not really with regard to liberty. So they've been arguing that the judicial branch, which is the only present mechanism that actually limits the power of the government, stop doing that, so that the legislature can do whatever it wants, particularly with regard to cracking down on immoral behavior. This is supreme irony. It is also supremely ironic that support for a powerful judiciary is considered a liberal idea.

The next person who talks to me about judicial activism will get a response about legislative activism.

The idea of a limited government is something I could really get behind in a general sense, and you'd think in a general sense conservatives would be wonderful allies in that endevor, but in practice the Republicans seem much more interested in limiting a handful of things that I think really matter (like healthcare) and not limiting the plethora of pork and useless over-regulation that I'm not interested in, and I think they're unlikely to swallow the pill of individual liberty that would be required by legislative analyses about whether laws are "necessary and proper." I wish they were, but there is something to be said for reclaiming the words "limited government," which neither party is really interested in.

The Volokh Conspiracy - On 'legislating from the bench'



 
 
Powered By Industrial Memetics
RSS2.0